Re: art not music

Subject: Re: art not music
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 18:55:07 EST


> >
> > Does EA "exclude" rhythm and harmony? I don't think so. I think EA has
> > so many possibilities from which form can be derived that harmony and
> > rhythm are now just a subset of the composable sound world.
> I see rhythm and harmony as evident in many ea works, yet the handeling of
> them is different.

Well this is quite a discussion and much of it is beyond me but I find this
topic to be very important and quite interesting. From my understanding of
things electro-acoustics seems to be a multi dimensional term which can be
misinterpreted easily. For the purposes of this posting I am using it as a term
used to describe the a genre of electro-acoustic music. I am in certainly agree
with the view that ea is doesn't negate traditional parameters such as rythmic
periodicity, harmony, or even melody. I believe that some of the most
convincing pieces draw upon very musical resouces as a starting point for EA
composition. Is the term harmony restricted to the concept of superimposed
intervals? I think that Schoenberg's idea of Klangfarbenmelodie and Carter's
concept of harmonic orchestration are both distinct moves in a direction
towards an aesthetic closely related to the gestural/timbral oriented style of
EA. The growth of the often un-pitched/gestural percussion section in the 20th
century also highlights a propensity towards this hybrid EA/music style. John
Cage suggested that Schoenberg should have emancipated not only the
dissonance but also the tone. I think that throughout the 20th century
composers have been mostly exploring and pioneering new resources for this
generation to draw from. I feel this storm of invention perhaps contributes to
the creation of a system that is as subtantial or rather as effective as the
limited and outdated tonal system. Anyway I have more to say but I leave my
thoughts at that. Just wondering what you think.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:07 EST